Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 7/13/16 at 10:38am UTC, wrote ooops It was me All helps are welcome because I work actualy about the...

Anonymous: on 7/13/16 at 10:36am UTC, wrote All helps are welcome because I work actualy about the geometrical...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/13/16 at 9:39am UTC, wrote E=mc²+ml² Here is a small idea about dark matter and BH and spherons. ...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/11/16 at 18:16pm UTC, wrote I can understand that people wants to find the real meaning of BH ,dark...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/11/16 at 11:00am UTC, wrote Hello To both of you, We search what they are these BH.I beleive strongly...

Jonathan Dickau: on 7/10/16 at 19:31pm UTC, wrote Hello Kalpana, I guess you didn't notice that Prof. Mitra was already a...

Kalpana Pandian: on 7/10/16 at 12:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Researchers Kindly have a look at this talk by Prof. Dr. Abhas K...

Amrit Sorli: on 11/1/15 at 17:16pm UTC, wrote read this paper



FQXi FORUM
November 21, 2018

CATEGORY: Cosmology [back]
TOPIC: Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 23:26 GMT
A few months ago I wrote an article for Nature outlining a paper by Stephen Hawking in which he redefined what we mean by an "event horizon". Fans of the podcast will also have heard FQXi members Carlo Rovelli and Jorge Pullin talking about how Loop Quantum Gravity might do away with black hole singularities -- the infinitely dense cores of black holes -- entirely.

Now FQXi member Laura Mersini-Houghton has provided an alternative analysis that shows that black holes will not form from the collapse of stars. In papers on the arXiv (arXiv:1409.1837 and in Physics Letters B), she and co-author Harald Pfeiffer calculate that the emission of Hawking radiation will prevent a collapsing star from crunching right down into a singularity, instead causing the star to bounce outwards. Thank you to John Merryman for suggesting that we open a thread to discuss this work.

The work has been covered by phys.org.

From the article by Thania Benios:

Mersini-Houghton "and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole. Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole."

So how do you think Mersini-Houghton's proposal measures up? Is it time to say bye-bye to black holes?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 14:20 GMT
Zeeya, I like Joe Polchinkski's quote in your Nature article:

"We never see space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large scales."

That's just the case that militates against Polchinski's own firewall hypothesis, in my opinion. An event horizon of quantum effects that demarcates quantum and classical domains implies that there is no accumulative effect of quantum fluctuations on the small scale.

Einstein's free fall analogy combined with Hawking's 'apparent horizon' is without boundary of scale.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 00:24 GMT
It would seem that whatever falls in, will eventually be radiated back out. In normal terms, this would seem to be part of the cycle defining the relationship between mass and radiation.

Gravity is the contraction of mass, but the process does radiate out surplus energy all through the process and what this seems to suggest is that at some point, it all gets radiated out again.

It...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 05:17 GMT
This issue is more than just an academic curiosity..

The astronomical objects usually called black holes can tell us a lot about the universe, including what is the correct theory of quantum gravity, or what sort of theory supersedes it - from which quantum mechanics is emergent. The problem of black hole event horizon formation is a nested conundrum, where there are various processes both Quantum and Classical that can theoretically halt the formation of a horizon, all at work, and it is more a question of the specific mechanism that gets the job done.

We discussed on another FQXi Forum page Steven Kenneth Kauffmann's paper A Self-Gravitational Upper Bound on Localized Energy.., which suggests there is a point at which energy ceases to be compressible - forming a kind of condensate - or that it resists further saturation within a space by reducing self-gravitation. This is related to the effect described by Eddington, called the Eddington luminosity or Eddington limit - where a star or AGN can be so bright it opposes the force of its own gravity and pushes away what would aggregate. And this effect also relates to the force limits described by Christoph Schiller.

A number of years ago; George Chapline wrote about something called Dark Energy Stars (attached), that also provided a clear mechanism by which event horizon is likely halted - so that an event horizon never forms. But long before then; Abhas Mitra created exact solutions that make much the same predictions as Mersini-Houghton, but do not depend on quantum effects. So if it is a question of the chicken or the egg; I think the egg was first, from which emerged the first anatomically complete chicken.

All the Best,

Jonathan

attachments: 317506.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 06:04 GMT
To be clear...

Black hole event horizons, and conditions for their formation or reasons for their non-formation, are by nature multi-disciplinary entities to study. What starts out to be a problem in Relativity or Differential Geometry, turns into a problem that involves Particle Physics, and Quantum Gravity - as well as questions about emergent space-time and other subjects that seem unrelated. Questions raised by experiments designed to test Bell's theorem may find relevant answers in the emanations of black holes - or rather the ECOs that are the actual astronomical objects that were thought to be black holes.

I think there is some semantic inconsistency in the paper by Mersini-Houghton, by calling what is radiated Hawking energy - because that is seen as leaking from behind an event horizon - but in general the correct point is conveyed. The real question is why the event horizon fails to form in many or all cases, and what sort of emanations will allow us to detect the the actual nature of the resulting object - to distinguish it among all the various proposed alternatives. My guess is that many of the predictions made by Abhas Mitra, in numerous papers over the years, will prove to be correct. But I doubt his work will find mainstream acceptance without some kind of academic consensus.

Regardless of who made the theory; I am hopeful the objects themselves will reveal though some detectable emanations exactly what they are.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 13:43 GMT
" ... black holes can tell us a lot about the universe, including what is the correct theory of quantum gravity, or what sort of theory supersedes it - from which quantum mechanics is emergent. The problem of black hole event horizon formation is a nested conundrum, where there are various processes both Quantum and Classical that can theoretically halt the formation of a horizon, all at work, and it is more a question of the specific mechanism that gets the job done."

Once again, Jonathan, your talent for exposition of complicated subjects shines through the haze.

My opinion is that Hawking's newest theoretical innovation will withstand challenge, because it is one more step toward eliminating the boundary between quantum and classical domains. It may well be Joy Christian's measurement framework that turns the tide experimentally; the black hole topology absent of event horizon has a built-in topological twist that implies simple connectivity between the singularity and its spacetime environment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Nainan K. Varghese replied on Nov. 13, 2014 @ 16:40 GMT
Except for their extremely large matter-content, black holes are like any other macro body. All mysterious properties assigned to them are mere human imagination.Kindly see http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0195

Nainan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 10:40 GMT
I CONGRATULATE Laura Mersini-Haughton & Harald Pfeiffer. Reality is desperately needed in cosmology and this is a giant leap.

Those who study the finding who also read my cyclic cosmology paper(s) will notice the consistencies; The stellar scale black hole (BH), most visible at the heart of the Crab nebula (see fig here; Helical CMBR Asymmetry is shown to have the same dynamic morphology as active galactic nuclei (AGN's), called 'super-massive BH's' (SMBH's) outside astronomy.

The ubiquitous re-ionized bi-polar outflows (Quasar 'jets' when at full power) are directly equivalent to the so called 'Hawking Radiation', producing the 'lobes' of lenticular galaxies (pre-quasar stage) and the anomalous 'Fermi bubbles' and 'hypervelocity star' ejections of the Milky Way (low power stage).

The shock hypothesis I describe is that the jets do NOT stop, until ALL the disc matter is accreted, the column of re-ionized matter then commencing rotation to a virial axis on the orthogonal axis to form a new open spiral. Not only are a whole series of anomalies resolved by such a model (similar to Penroses CCC discussed nearby but resolving the problems) but the peculiar anisotropies are repeated as a 'fractal' model at the CMBR scale. All as published (HJ) and described in detail with references here;

A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars.

The model may be wrong, will sound crazy to many and is certainly incomplete, but it does seem to resolve all key issues with current theory. The 'Big Bang' would become an eternal sequence of big bi-polar 'Blasts'. Could we cope with the loss of Black Holes AND the Big Bang all in one century!?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 13:44 GMT
Peter,

We seem to be in general agreement as to the overall picture and good luck fleshing out the many details. I think that once a clearer picture of the entire cycle begins to emerge, that gravity will become evident as an overall effect of the system and not a particular force on its own and that is why it is currently best described in the topological terms of "spacetime."

On a more sociological note, given the amount of pressure currently building in this particular bubble, there is probably more opportunity for facilitators than originators. The nature of the game is that those much more professionally centered in the discipline will be given credit, such as Mersini-Haughton. What will be most useful now are those able to spread the message among the many professionals working in associated areas, as you mentioned previously, who avoid discussions of theory, in order not to be judged crackpots by the thought police, but who will, when the tide does start to turn, be more than ready to jump on the band wagon. It might not make one the center of attention, which has its pros and cons, but will put one in the position of riding one of science's great waves and then one's own work becomes part of that wave.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 16:53 GMT
John,

I agree, 'seeking glory' is a false god and counter productive. My Email to Laura MH enclosing my supporting results identified that she had far more chance of publication in a leading PRJ than JM and I.

But you may be able to bring your experience to bear. It seems the problem with a new wave to ride is that it has to be generated and built. That takes some degree of collaboration, but almost all seem to be loners and not interested.

It seems the way of the dissident in particular i.e. Eric Reiters work is in good agreement, but the idea of collaboration seemed to make him run a mile! 'Herding cats' comes to mind, which is where you're the expert! I've tried the tempting morsels at feeding time. Any other ideas? lol.

I lost by the way. Me playing off scratch was silly. Back to fleshing out details from the information overload. Do keep hitting those balls, I hope your next opponent keeps the noise down a bit.

Best wishes

Peter

PS There's nothing new under the sun they say; Found these today, on helicoils! and

'The Wave Theory of the Field'.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 22:31 GMT
Thanks Peter,

I want to commend you for pointing out some of the things above, which might to unenlightened readers seem unrelated to this question. But it is indeed germane to assert that the exact properties of the objects we've been calling black holes both depend upon the large-scale shape of the universe, and tell us a fair amount about what that shape must be. So the choice of cosmology and the predictions about how the background space shapes the properties of these astrophysical objects influence each other, or are intertwined.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 14:22 GMT
Anonymous post was mine.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 22:19 GMT
Hello again,

I don't want to rain on the parade of Mersini-Houghton or Rovelli, for their recent and soon to be published work, but I would prefer that some attention was given to earlier work that makes similar predictions for reasons that may yet prove to be correct. I think I likely misspoke above, in some of my claims, as George Chapline's paper on Dark Energy Stars is dated March 2005, while the paper below by Mitra and Glendenning, is dated April 2010.

Likely formation of general relativistic radiation pressure supported stars...

This paper predicts the existence of Eternally Collapsing Objects, or ECOs, as an alternative to objects that undergo a final collapse, form an event horizon, and become Black Holes - in the conventional sense of the word. This inspired the work of Darryl Jay Leiter, on MECOs (where the M is for magnetospheric) that culminated in a paper with Christian Corda and other colleagues, which was published after his demise and became the basis for an FQXi contest essay, a few years back. Links for that work are given below.

Farewell to black hole horizons and singularities?

Black holes or anything else? (FQXi contest essay)

There is considerable astrophysical evidence now that Black Holes do have hair, as Hawking predicted years ago, but that it is magnetic hair as well. This finding might suggest that the work of Leiter with Corda, Moaquera Cuestra, Robertson, and Schild, was on the right track.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 22:23 GMT
I misspelled Herman's last name, Mosquera Cuestra, just now...

apologies

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 23:20 GMT
For what it is worth..

I have been in touch with some of the people mentioned above, along with a few others, and I have invited them to participate in this discussion.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Sep. 26, 2014 @ 14:29 GMT
This paper appears to be part of a growing body of work that shows the incompatibility of gravity with quantum action at black hole horizons. However, this particular paper seems to have a somewhat ad hoc radiation efficiency that somehow is just right to convert all collapsing matter into energy as Hawking radiation. They do not discuss the consequences of such an energy release, but complete mass to energy conversion for a collapsing black hole would be many orders of magnitude greater than observed for any supernova.

The take away message here is not that this particular approach is the be all and end all, it is rather that science is beginning to focus on the right question. The paper acknowledges the information and firewall paradoxes and here is a quote from the paper along with further citations of related recent work:

"The conclusions derived from both theories, the existence of black holes from Einstein's theory of gravity and the existence of Hawking radiation from the theory of quantum fi elds in curved spacetime, were soon found to be in high friction with one another, (see articles below for an interesting treatment)."

J. T. Firouzjaee and G. F. R. Ellis,arXiv:1408.0778 [gr-qc];"Cosmic Matter Flux May Turn Hawking Radiation Off," 2014.

G. F REllis, R. Goswami, A. I. M. Hamid and S. D. Maharaj, arXiv:1407.3577 [gr-qc] "Astrophysical Black Hole horizons in a cosmological context: Nature and possible consequences on Hawking Radiation," 2014


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 26, 2014 @ 14:59 GMT
It is important to recognize that this nice paper shows a single flaw in GR gravity, but the paper does not show the solution, nor does it illuminate the other flaws in gravity action. Before you hop on this bus, you need to know if it is going where you want to go...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 26, 2014 @ 15:41 GMT
Steve,

"complete mass to energy conversion for a collapsing black hole would be many orders of magnitude greater than observed for any supernova."

True, but that's not how it works. Shown evident in astronomy AGN type outflows are the 'real' manifestation of loss from SMBH's in the same way as the jet from the Crab Nebula core torus is the stellar scale version. The energy of these grows gradually forming the ubiquitous 'lobes' (our is the so called 'Fermi bubble' ), peaks as a quasar jet and only dies out when all the disc matter has been 'consumed' (re-ionized).

The problem you envisage then doesn't need to exist in reality. Outflow energies have been calculated quite precisely, but have a wide temporal distribution linked to OAM and accretion rates.

I'm a little surprised by your comment; "Before you hop on this bus, you need to know if it is going where you want to go..." Surely that's not doing science properly and we should objectively watch where the evidence suggests it goes. How can we be honest if we decide what we 'want it to go'? Testing hypotheses is one thing, but isn't that rather more like 'cherry picking'!

Best wishes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 26, 2014 @ 15:45 GMT
Thanks greatly Steve..

What I am seeing is a convergence of the Quantum and Classical arguments, regarding the non-formation of event horizons. I think perhaps the only physically realistic circumstance in which a purely Schwarzschild Black Hole entity is possible is as a final singularity - when it is the only object left, because everything else in the universe is being sucked into the horizon.

However; I find the papers cited in your comment above to be particularly interesting, in that the concept of the inner bound being purely timelike, with the outer shell being purely spacelike, resolves many paradoxes. I need to read those papers for detail, but other work beckons right now. I am happy that at least a few great minds are giving these issues the attention they deserve.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 26, 2014 @ 16:22 GMT
Everyone keep in mind the whole process.

While black holes are a mathematical projection of gravity to infinity and we are just now starting to accept that it is also a dynamic process of shedding radiation, it is not only just at the very core, but from the visible edge of galaxies, because, by definition, that's where we start seeing the light radiating out.

Then there is the question of where is this energy radiating out going to and is it the same general radiation pouring into and powering galaxies in the first place.

In which case, we could very likely find explanations for why the light of distant galaxies is redshifted and for that cosmic microwave background radiation, without all the baggage required to fix the Big Bang model.

Think of a cosmic convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass. Not only would this dichotomy explain the universal dynamic, but even down at the quantum level, it is order trying to pull everything in line and energy equally pushing everything out. Order is top down and energy is bottom up.

Regards,

John M

I think we will understand

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 26, 2014 @ 20:11 GMT
I like this idea because it has the decay of the galaxy as the indicator of the universe, which is true. You do have good instincts. However, your expansion with energy and conversion back needs a little more work...and some numbers. I can't get the math to work.

Radiation is only a very tiny fraction of matter equivalent energy and there simply is not enough radiation to balance matter in the universe. If you tap into the dark matter and dark energy reserves of the Bank of Big Bang, the BBB, you end up with the big bang bank credit card and the big bang owns you. The big bang is much more likely than any other more fanciful desire of your own.

In other words, if you borrow mass from the BBB, they have your essences in their big pockets...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 26, 2014 @ 21:30 GMT
Steve,

I think gravity is not so much a property of mass, as a full spectrum effect of energy coalescing into mass. Quite simply, when we release energy from mass, whether structural order, chemical, atomic, quantum, etc, it naturally occupies more space and the resulting effect is pressure. So what would the opposite effect be? A vacuum. Much of the area supposedly occupied by dark...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 26, 2014 @ 21:38 GMT
Steve,

Yes, it does seem as if the discussion is about the eye walls of hurricanes and what is happening inside them, with little attention being paid to the external forces going into creating this vortex.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Abhas Mitra wrote on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 06:53 GMT
Zeeya,

Thanks for introducing this new thread. Before we talk of saying goodbye to ``Black Holes'', we must bear in mind that astronomers have evidences for the existence of hundreds of Massive Compact Objects (MCOs) which certainly cannot be COLD compact objects like Neutron Stars or White Dwarfs. There are estimates that the radii of such MCOs could be close to respective Schwarzschild...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 07:38 GMT
Here is the opinion by William Unruh on the paper of Mersini-Houghton:

"The [paper] is nonsense," Unruh said in an email to IFLS. "Attempts like this to show that black holes never form have a very long history, and this is only the latest. They all misunderstand Hawking radiation, and assume that matter behaves in ways that are completely implausible."

According to Unruh, black holes don't emit enough Hawking radiation to shrink the mass of the black hole down to where Mersini-Houghton claims in a timely manner. Instead, "it would take 10^53 (1 followed by 53 zeros) times the age of the universe to evaporate," he explains.

"The standard behaviour by such people [who don't understand Hawking radiation] is to project that outgoing energy back closer and closer to the horizon of the black hole, where its energy density gets larger and larger," he continued. "Unfortunately explicit calculations of the energy density near the horizon show it is really, really small instead of being large... Those calculations were already done in the 1970s. To call bad speculation "has been proven mathematically" is, shall we say, and overstatement."

I think that the arguments by Abhas Mitra are very stronger than the ones by Mersini-Houghton.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 12:03 GMT
This Daily Beast article agrees with Unruh. (I don't like the overstated headline, though; good science has often resulted from unconventional models.)

And I agree with Christian. As much as we have invested in the study of gravitational collapse from the standpoint of classical gravity, it's a bit ambitious to jump in with quantum explanations that include ad hoc numerical parameters.

Even with the constraint of boundary conditions for continuous function calculations, we have a much more complete model of gravity in the classical picture. One can always add assumptions to any theory and come up with one's desired conclusions -- which in my opinion is a fundamental flaw of conventional quantum theory, that it begs interpretation.

Let's get back to first principles.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 13:05 GMT
Tom,

Not too get in too deep here, but it does seem that just about all gravitationally dense structures/processes/objects are also radiating significant energy, whether pulsars, quasars, galactic black holes, etc. and are spinning rapidly. It seems as though that the energy isn't just vanishing into some other dimension/black hole, but is being expressed back out, in any way possible.

In fact, the entire process of gravitational collapse, starting at the visible edge of galaxies, seems to radiate energy back out.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 13:20 GMT
John, please read Unruh's statement that Christian quoted. The energy density near the black hole horizon is actually very small. Relevant to whether it is vanishingly small is the question of whether an event horizon exists at all.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Abhas Mitra wrote on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 07:41 GMT
WHY THERE CANNOT BE ANY FINITE MASS ``Black Hole''

First recall, the gravitational mass appearing in the vacuum Schwarzschild solution appears as an `Integration Constant'' (IC) $$\alpha = 2 M$$ (G=c=1).

For an object with finite radius (Sun, Earth, Galaxy), this IC ($\alpha$) is obviously finite (and positive):

\begin{equation}

M = \int_0^{R_0} 4 \pi \rho R^2...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 09:01 GMT
Abhas,

In layman's language, the BHC is either radiating away the necessary mass, or has stabilized at a dense stage?

It seems these stellar versions of black hole candidates are quantitively and qualitatively different than those at the core of galaxies. Do these galaxy core black holes essentially seem to operate as a vortex, shooting the energy of whatever mass falls in, out the poles?

Regards,

John Merryman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 11:55 GMT
Abhas,

After glancing at your 2009 paper and your statement here that: "Therefore massive ``Black Hole Candidates'' (or any thing else with finite gravitational mass) CANNOT be true BHs", if I interpret you correctly the end result of gravitational collapse is a singularity of Zero mass rather than one of infinite density?

That will be an interesting result if so. Earlier Hawking and Penrose1 had formulated 'singularity theorems' which are of cosmological importance, an initial singularity at the Big Bang and a final singularity at the Big Crunch. They hold on to the model that ALL singularities, including black holes must be massive. This has led to paradoxes and problems requiring solution, such as flatness problem for example, requiring inflation scenario for resolution.

I have been proposing the opposite, that initial singularities have zero mass. I was therefore interested to see that Black holes if they exist must be of zero mass as well. My model is that the initial singularity was of zero mass and the mass of the universe has been increasing with its radius. This solves many cosmological problems. I didn't much consider the gravitational collapse of a Big crunch, but it would also follow now that the end result would also be Nothing, a singularity of zero mass. Bye-bye to black holes in their current form!

Regards,

Akinbo

1. Hawking, S.W. and Penrose, R., (1970), The Singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology, Proc. Roy. Soc., A314, 529-48.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Abhas Mitra replied on Sep. 28, 2014 @ 12:15 GMT
Akinbo,

A zero gravitational mass M=0 may still admit local energy density $\rho=\infty$. One may think that ``bare mass'' or positive contributions of mass due to $\rho$ is neutralized by the NEGATIVE self-gravitational energy. Infact this state M=0, R=0 corresponds to a spacetime curvature singularity where Kretschmann scalar $K=\infty$ . However this does not mean that such a singularity actually forms, this is so because the comoving proper time for formation of a zero mass BH is Infinite. So continued GR collapse can only asymptotically strives to achieve this elusive singular state. Hence, continued GR collapse must give rise to Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) rather than BHs or true spacetime singularities. In practical terms, such a collapse must be halted by appropriate physical process to result in a quasi-static configurations which nonetheless must keep on radiating (at howsoever miniscule rate) to hopelessly arrive at the M=0 true BH state.

Regards

Abhas

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Abhas Mitra wrote on Sep. 29, 2014 @ 07:10 GMT
Previous Hints That ``Schwarzschild Singularity'' Is a Genuine Physical Singularity, i.e., BH Mass M=0

Here may I draw your attention to the important paper entitled ``Reality of the Schwarzschild Singularity'' by

A.I. Janis, E.T. Newman & J. Winicour,Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 878...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 29, 2014 @ 08:54 GMT
Abhas,

"On the other hand, the meaning discussions . should have been on the theme ``If the so-called Black Holes are not true black holes what is the true nature of them."

The discussion then goes to the nature of the larger context from which these abstracted models have been extracted from. The focus on detail has to be kept in context, or it, evidently, becomes its own bias.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Abhas Mitra replied on Sep. 29, 2014 @ 11:35 GMT
John,

In reply to your previous query, indeed there should be significant difference between the properties of stellar mass & galactic mass BHCs. As per our research such BHCs are quasi-static ultracompact ultrahot balls of plasma (Eternally Collapsing Objects) about which I will brief in another post. They are also ultramagnetized and called Magnetospheric ECOs or MECOs. There are almost direct observational evidences that the so-called BHCs indeed have strong intrinsic magnetic field whereas true uncharged BHs have no intrinsic magnetic field.

For a 10 solar mass ECO, the mean local temperature ~ 200 MeV which means it should be Quark Gluon Plasma. Though there cannot be any precise theory for determining the magnetic field, our tentative estimate is that stellar mass ECOs/BHCs may have B~ 10^{15} to 10^{16} G which is of the order or little stronger than that of MAGNETARs. And the mean local temperature decreases with M as T ~ M^{-1/2}.

By virtue of such strong B, ECOs may behave like ultra relativistic pulsars. Also MECO magnetic fields couple to surrounding accretion disk magnetic fields to generate various astrophysical phenomena including launching of jets.

Regards

Abhas Mitra

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 29, 2014 @ 16:54 GMT
Abhas,

John Cox made an interesting comment earlier in the thread;

"I'm am always baffled by what anybody means by 'charge'. Like inertia, we only have an operational rather than general definition. Negative or positive seem to me to relate as distinct properties which might be determinable within a light velocity magnitude of density range which we macroscopically recognize as electrical phenomenon, and be dependent on the quantity of energy being equal on either side of a neutral (neutron) equilibrium. 'Positive' might be the predominant side of deceleration, and 'negative' being the predominant characteristic on the accelerant side; hence the electrical separation of centers on atomic masses."

It seems an interesting relation between static and dynamic, in terms of electrical charge.

So consider how this atomic level relationship might be scaled up to the stellar and galactic levels, forming those object like structures at the center and not just clouds of electrically charged gases.

As you point out;

"There are almost direct observational evidences that the so-called BHCs indeed have strong intrinsic magnetic field whereas true uncharged BHs have no intrinsic magnetic field."

It would seem to be impossible to have an uncharged BH. Like having a coin with only one side.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Abhas Mitra wrote on Oct. 1, 2014 @ 06:22 GMT
If the Black Hole Candidates (BHCs) Are Not True BHs, What Could They Be:

Well friends, Earth moves around the Sun: To understand this fact we need not fall back on any (i) Quantum Mechanics, (ii) Quantum Field Theory, (iii) String Theory or say (iv) Loop Quantum Gravity. On the other hand, we can understand why Earth obeys Kepler’s laws by using plain Newtonian gravity. In fact, for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 1, 2014 @ 11:14 GMT
Abhas,

I agree your work shows the flaws of many beliefs about 'black holes'. As most others can't access MNRAS papers I post a direct link to the archive copy aid others; A generic relation between baryonic and radiative energy densities of stars.

I agree with many fundamentals but disagree with various assumptions and conclusions as there's an alternative which is well evidenced, which is OAM as the energy and polar outflows (peaking to quasar jets) as the leakage, simply evaporating the momentum. A cyclic model is implied because the 'column' of jet matter rotates on the perpendicular axis at a virial radius (explaining a whole tranche of anomalies including kinetic decoupling etc etc) re-building the core OAM.

The process is far clearer in AGN's than at stellar scales, but our nearest example, the Crab Nebula core, shows it clearly. As an astronomer and 'observational cosmologist' rather than astrophysical theorist we approach from very different foundations, and I focus more on SMBH scales. but I consider past theory can hampers as much as help, relying on observation not past interpretations. Having said that, the sum of each part is greater...

I wonder if you could also read my own (joint) paper before you respond, to understand the plasma physics basis and fundamentally important implications emerging from the recycling model. A fractal version consistent with CMB peculiar anisotropies suggests a cyclic cosmology similar to the improved positions of Penrose and more recently Hawking. Published in the HJ and archived here;

Cyclic SMBH Evolution.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 03:07 GMT
Has anyone considered the possibility that during the inflationary epoch of the big bang, some energy might have been dumped into other Higgs field regions? For those who like the idea of alternate dimensions, it might work this way. During the inflationary period, energy was dumped into some finite number of other Higgs field regions that probably have their own unique standard model. Such regions would be all around us, but we could not see their light. I am assuming that each unique Higgs field supports its own photons/virtual photons/particles. There would be some kind of potential energy barrier that separates these Higgs fields (the way dirt and earth separate the great lakes). It could explain why dark matter is invisible (and why gray aliens can go unnoticed.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 03:43 GMT
It is reasonable to assert..

Cosmological factors, including particle Physics like Higgs densities, regarding the properties of the background space are germane to this discussion. But while Mersini-Houghton once wrote a paper suggesting that there is evidence another bubble (an adjacent universe) is touching ours, the effects of this would most likely not influence properties of the objects under discussion in this forum.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 03:02 GMT
Hello All,

I want to thank Abhas Mitra for his active participation, and others for their continued interest in this subject. But I'd also like to stir the pot a bit, to keep things interesting. There is some complacency I think, even among the experts in the fields that most pertain, in assuming such expertise allows us to trivialize or dismiss various concerns about BHCs - even when doing so is highly erroneous.

The reason is that to study these objects well requires expertise that is unusually deep and broad - so that most researchers are unwilling to study the half-dozen or more unfamiliar topics that are absolutely necessary for a proper treatment, beyond their core disciplines. And that is partly why the scientific community looks to multi-disciplinary experts like Stephen Hawking to pass judgment, or provide needed insight, for additional progress to be made.

Now what is most urgently needed is to forge an understanding of how to better merge the Quantum and Classical pictures, in order to make our understanding whole. Instead of asserting that Quantum trumps Classical or classical (plus non-linear) subsumes and trumps Quantum reality, we should be looking for a deeper understanding that encompasses both. That is how deep I think the real Physics goes, to adequately describe the objects which have been called Black Holes - sometimes Black Hole Candidates or BHCs - that are probably some flavor of Eternally Collapsing Object or ECO.

I think that Christian Corda and his recent colleagues are on the correct track, to assert that a semi-Classical approximation of what we observe should be possible and should reveal the nature of Quantum Gravity that is at work in our universe. So as I said above; it's not one or the other, but rather that the Quantum and Classical pictures are convergent. In my opinion, this is an important point.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 03:11 GMT
Yes, and I am with you...I see the value in both QM and GR and want a way to merge them. Since I have a way, but am not in cosmology, it is interesting to see if matter time really holds water. That is why these discussions are useful for me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 03:13 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Is anybody considering the existence of multiple Higgs fields, that were generated during the Inflationary Epoch? They might have there own standard model and there own light, but be isolated from our Higgs field. The great lakes are seperated by land which would represent some inflationary epoch force that we're not aware of.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 03:29 GMT
It also deserves to be mentioned...

Points raised in Hawking's paper about Black Holes and Weather forecasting suggest that what is being noted is the analogy with factors that arise purely from the Math of figuring in higher-order algebras, involving the loss of commutativity and then associativity - as one gets closer to an event horizon boundary - because of scale factor considerations. It was brought up by Lawrence Crowell in his contest essay a few years ago, that this property precludes our knowing its exact location and keeps the precise boundary ill-defined physically.

After a quick read; it appears that maybe this divergence of spatial localization near the Schwarzschild radius may be related to what George Ellis and colleagues are talking about, in that this could force the space-like radii to always be projected above or outside the purely time-like bound. This would also validate my assertion from my very first FQXi essay, that time is fundamentally more primal than space - or subsumes it. But it would suggest that what we thought were Black Holes are objects that violate our concept that every physical object has an interior. Instead of there being space within the ECO, space is wrapped around it.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 03:56 GMT
For what it's worth Steve..

Matter-time is one of the missing pillars I asserted Physics needs to define, in order to pin down the nature of reality, in my very first FQXi essay. The idea is that Relativity is founded on unifying Space and Time, while Quantum Mechanics assumes Matter and Energy are a unified entity. I said; what about matter-space, matter-time, energy-space, and energy-time unification?

Matter-Time would be connected to the property of duration, in my view, where sub-atomic particles have a particular lifetime, or half-life. I would imagine ECOs also have a discrete lifetime, or duration, which is seen to be a half-life when a statistical average of all the relativistic viewpoints possible is taken. I hope this comment is of some value.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 04:52 GMT
Good. I like pillars, as long as they are axioms and therefore self evident. And there should not be too many of them...I like three axioms for a universe.

The idea of GR is founded on space time, but matter and energy are also unified in GR. I would argue that QM is founded on matter and time and and that matter and energy are unified as well in QM.

Space time has many useful attributes, but fundamentally, space and time are two dependent representations of the same action. This is a problem for unification, but not impossible to solve.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 21:05 GMT
Thanks Steve,

See my comments below about the gravitational radius defining a sphere containing a parcel of time, in relation to the Matter-Time discussion, the subject of duration, persistence of objects in time - and so on.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 04:55 GMT
To elaborate on my comments about higher-order algebras..

My impression is that an event horizon is not a simple boundary, but rather a spectral manifold - an object with a boundary that has a spectrum of locality, instead of an exact location in space.

This is part of what I was talking about when I mentioned the loss of commutativity, because non-commutative geometries display a spectral aspect. I see this as being due to how dimensional reduction from 3-d into 2-d compresses scale and drives the scale factor toward the Planck scale - near where the event horizon would form - but before the point of crossing.

So we have something which appears to be an object, and is defined by the Schwarzschild equation as a limiting case of where its boundary would be if it did have an interior, but if Ellis and colleagues are correct the BHCs that are likely ECOs do not have an interior at all, because all of the space-like trajectories wrap around the time-like core, which is forever hidden from view. And what I said before implies the exact location of the boundary in space has a built-in uncertainty.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 05:02 GMT
I meant to say..

Higher order geometries come into effect because of dimensional compression, in the direction toward the object, or where the event horizon would form, and this creates a condition where non-commutative and non-associative geometries come into play. But reading what I said above I seem to have stopped making complete sense so I need to get some sleep.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 20:13 GMT
Higher order geometries are something that math instructors write down on whiteboards. I think in nature, a Higgs field is something that exists that has a set of standard model particles associated with it. If a second Higgs field exists in the same space as our detected field, particles and energy might not interact between them, but what about the wave-functions? Could the wave-functions between them interact?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 21:01 GMT
On the surface..

Talking of higher dimensions, and higher-order geometries associated with them, might appear to be irrelevant to this discussion. However; what is being discussed is a kind of dimensional boundary. What is this event horizon thing?

Does it lead to another dimension? Is it 4-d, 5-d, 7-d space inside - or none at all? I'm leaning now toward the hypothesis it contains only time, and no space at all. But between us and that dimensional boundary, there is likely an energetic region that exceeds the binding energy of particles.

Perhaps the lines of space actually wrap around a Black Hole, instead of entering it. Is it possible that this puts the interior of a Black Hole outside of space, and beyond the reach of a Higgs field or field structure from multiple Higgs mechanisms?

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 10:33 GMT
Jonathan, Steve,

I think that in discussions of cosmology, there has to be some reconsideration of steady state models, if only as an issue of pure objectivity. They were initially rejected at a time when physics knew far less than it does now and much of the more extreme patches and projections are efforts to explain observations within the expanding universe model; Inflation, Dark matter, Dark energy, multiverses, etc. and as I keep pointing out, using the principle of relativistic spacetime to explain why we appear at the center of this expansion, while entirely overlooking the fact that the clockrate/speed of light would have to increase to remain constant to this expanded space, for it to even be relativistic! Meanwhile it would be entirely normal for us to appear at the center, if redshift is an optical/lensing effect and there are quite a few possibilities for explaining how this could be.

I think that once this particular door is opened up again, it will give cosmology a lot of tools currently disallowed, such as an infinite time frame to explain many of the processes that don't exactly fit in the current limits.

Is cosmology a science, or politics?

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 20:45 GMT
On some level...

A large subset of the inflationary multiverse theories actually are a kind of steady-state universe, only with the continuous creation usually occurring beyond the horizon of observability or Hubble radius. On some level; it's also about where you are looking at it from, John. My work deriving cosmological models from the Mandelbrot Set shows me that a single model can appear to have a cold dark end, and be cyclical, and be steady state - all at once - if a God's eye view of reality is allowed.

The Wheeler-Dewitt equation implies a God's eye view, according to Fotini Markopoulou, and sometimes viewing the universe that way can be helpful. However; it is not going to be realizable by any physical entity, so it can be argued it's not really Physics. On the other hand; there are serious approaches that do not require a Big Bang, Inflationary, or Multiverse scenario, to reproduce what we see. I particularly like Fractal universe cosmologies, and I think Dr. Mitra has also been looking at this lately.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 20:28 GMT
To take things a step further..

Eddington's "Space, Time, and Gravitation" is a book I read repeatedly, as a young man, and one thing that jumped out at me was that a difference of Einsteinian with Newtonian gravity is that the lines of force - forming a gravitational well - converge not to a point, but to a ring the gravitational radius away from the exact center. But this latest work by George F.R. Ellis and colleagues suggests a further generalization that makes sense of the rest.

What if the sphere defined by the gravitational or Schwarzschild radius has no spatial volume, no space-like interior to speak of, and is purely a sphere or ball of time? This sphere that contains a parcel of time could be what sets the duration of mass-bearing objects, in general! It could be said that, in all cases, the existence of mass will cause a sphere of time to arise, which is a place keeper allowing it to persist with locality in space.

This, of course raises questions about whether photons or gravitons, usually thought to be massless, must actually have a minimal rest-mass to fulfill their function - but I'll leave that aside. The real question is how what Ellis calls the formation of an IMOTS or Marginally Outer Trapped Surface, which is purely time-like, might hold the door open while not actually allowing anything to enter - forbidding a Black Hole event horizon from forming. This has the effect of giving ECOs the property of duration in time, or allows them to persist in our universe. In effect; the event horizon contains a finite piece of eternity. This is the embodiment of an old saying from Plato, often attributed to Diogenes, 'Time is the Image of Eternity.'

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 21:13 GMT
IMOTS should be..

Inner Marginally Trapped Outer Surfaces, is the proper long form. Ellis and colleagues assert that this is the innermost layer of a Black Hole's horizon and that it is purely time-like. And my generalization is that the gravitational radius of any mass-bearing object likely defines a sphere containing only time, and being outside of space or having no interior to speak of.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 23:10 GMT
Jonathan,

If I may explain my cyclical system with a simplistic analogy, it would be a factory.

Now on a very basic level, the product goes one direction, from start to finish, while the process points the other direction, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. Now this process consumes a lot of material and energy and creates a lot of excess, other than the final...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 23:10 GMT
Jonathon,

...and the Lost Particle of Time.

use it if you like :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 2, 2014 @ 21:16 GMT
It's not my business to deal with black holes. I agree with Jonathan Dickau only on that what I consider speculations about the universe as a whole are interrelated.

Please forgive me uttering my perhaps unwelcome doubt whether there are at all actual singularities and any actual infinity in the real world. Isn't history of ideas for a created and somehow complete world is a record of tenets that were proved untenable or at least seemingly rescued by means of adapted and again adapted hypotheses?

When engineers like me enjoy calculating with fictitious singularities, we never imagine them something physical real.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 00:14 GMT
It is not unwelcome..

To point out that many of the infinities and singularities appearing in the Maths indicate that our model is showing us that something is unphysical, is certainly germane to this conversation. Dr. Mitra's main thrust is that we cannot just ignore when various Math quantities go to infinity, and must examine the Physics there more carefully.

I think the 'no drama' scenario, where an event horizon is viewed purely as a 'coordinate singularity' that has no physical meaning is rather naive. In my opinion; it is absolutely reasonable that we ask why does the Jacobian diverge at the horizon, or what do the infinities mean, rather than simply making them go away by applying a coordinate transformation.

While sometimes we can normalize discontinuities away, just by knowing the value things converge to, we can't automatically assume they don't exist, just because our Math lets us do this.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 00:15 GMT
Ugh.. logged me out, it did..

That was me above.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 5, 2014 @ 05:50 GMT
Jonathan, Tom, Akinbo,

Fig. 3 of 1364 illustrates what I consider a non-Euclidean notion of numbers behind putative singularities within IR. Dedeind's pebble like notion of number is responsible for the distinction between ] and ) in so called point-set-topology. The latter should rather be called pebble-set-theory. It contradicts to Euclid's definition of a point as something that has no parts while a genuine continuum is something every part of which has parts.

While Buridan's pebble-critical donkey is most likely of ancient origin, Johannes Buridan and also Nicole of Oresme were early critics of Claudius Ptolemaios.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Abhas Mitra wrote on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 07:06 GMT
Dear All,

Let us assume either semi-classical gravity or QG does affect gravitational collapse. But the radius of a BHC of 1 solar mass is ~ 3 km and which is not a microscopic object at all. The radius of a 1 million solar mass BHC is ~ 3 million km, again which is not at all any quantum object. Also if one would think of QG effect, note, the strength of gravity is supposed to be given by tidal forces (Kretschmann Scalar) which is is not large enough for even 1 solar mass BHC. Further its value decreases as M^{-4} and could be arbitrarily small for sufficiently massive BHCs. Therefore the problem of formation of astrophysical BHCs is certainly a classical GR problem. And the research carried out by me (and few others) have shown that

1. There cannot be any finite mass BHs, and all BHCs must be something else.

2. This ``something else’’ is most likely to be ECOs/MECOs because of the dramatic increase of radiation trapping by self-gravity for z>>1. This are generic effects and should be present in all QG introduction as well.

3. QG effect, if any, must further resist formation of BHs.

4. Some authors needed to invoke mysterious properties of the collapsing fluid like formation of ``Dark Energy’’ or transformation from the regime of POSITIVE pressure to NEGATIVE pressure. Since astrophysical BHCs are classical objects, such effects even if assumed to be true must be negligible compared to be GENERIC radiation trapping effect.

Thus we could have formally bade farewell to BH paradigm long before the erroneous paper of Laura.

Regards

Abhas

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Abhas Mitra wrote on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 07:35 GMT
OBSERVATION EVIDENCES FOR THIS PICTURE That Astrophysical BHCs/MCOs are MECOs

If the BHCs are ECOs, which is much more compact than typical Neutron Stars and horizonless, they are expected to possess INTRINSIC magnetic field (B) much stronger than that of neutron stars. Indeed, way back in 2002, in a pioneering paper,

Ref 1. ``Evidence for Intrinsic Magnetic Moments in Black Hole...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 4, 2014 @ 17:53 GMT
You are preaching to the choir here. I do not understand why Mersini&Houghton did not reference your very nice papers, even though your papers did not seem to make it to the "big show."

What you do not mention at all (and neither did M&H) was the possibility of boson stars being the quantum equivalent of an ECO. Is there any room for boson stars in your cosmology? There is a huge literature on boson stars and such objects are much better quantum objects than SMBHs or ECOs and I can't help but think that these objects are inherently quantum ground states of large matter accretions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 4, 2014 @ 18:29 GMT
Oh, now I see why your work was not cited.

Why there cannot be any Hawking radiation...Abhas Mitra, 2014

This is very interesting. A war within the war of the worlds, gravitology versus quantumology...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Oct. 4, 2014 @ 21:53 GMT
If you follow a photon, I think it will go all the way to the center of the black hole (in principle). That is to say that the event horizon is a mirage from the point of view of flat space. If such a photon were to make it all the way to the center, it would blue shift all the way in until gravity gave it far more energy than any gamma ray.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Oct. 5, 2014 @ 11:04 GMT
Cosmology and fundamental physics have come to the limit of knowledge to the limit in the process of cognition. Therefore, the issue of "black holes" should be considered not only at the level of mathematics and observation, but at the deepest ontological level. In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification of knowledge in addition to the standard empirical justification. The Universum must be considered as a whole («whole»? Vs. «hole»?).

The pinciple: total ontological unification of matter at all levels of the Universum. In the construction the Universum appear "source" and "outflow" of matter and the primordial generating structure ("general framework structure") as the ontological framework, carcass and basis of fundamental knowledge. We must remember that today as well as mathematics and physics - fundamental sign systems without ontological justification. This philosophical nonsense of modern fundamental science.

Yes, today it is necessary «to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe», «to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happene.» Concept "black hole" - a beautiful and fascinating metaphor (for example in art - the "Black square"), but it does not give a new heuristic. The Universum, basic science and modern society needs a new ontology, which gives an insight into the nature of information and time , an insight into primordial ontological structure of space and its ontological dimension.

Sincerely,

Vladimir Rogozhin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 5, 2014 @ 11:26 GMT
Vladimir,

It might be that black holes are simply the limit of linear projection and we need to reconsider a more cyclical paradigm.

Less narrative bottom line and more yin and yang.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 19:53 GMT
Yes, John, to overcome the "crisis of understanding" the fundamental knowledge requires a comprehensive synthesis, compression all information accumulated by mankind and construction of "the general framework structure". Need more profound dialectic than the "Yin-Yang" deeper ontological eidos of the Universum - eidos of "coincidence of opposites", pulling together all the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Gusserl), all the ultimate meanings and values of the Universum. New heuristics and understanding of the Universum can only give the deepest philosophical ontology.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 23:50 GMT
Vladimir,

Yin and yang is a very simple model, but using it as a counter-example to linear narrative is a way to express how there are profoundly different paradigms taking precedence for different people. Being able to first develop some common denominator of understanding in order to have the necessary conversation requires some basic models and relationships. Probably a more explicit example would be along the lines of feedback loops and thermodynamics.

Now the larger goal might well be to have more than just a pleasant conversation and trading of insights and to genuinely get humanity thinking about what it wants for the future of this planet, as the prior contest asked and that requires strategy, not just modeling.

The only way that would arise from these discussions is if the coming paradigm shift in physics can be used as a lever to raise questions about many of the other facets of society and civilization which could use reconsideration. That was somewhat the intent in my own entry, but I didn't state it explicitly, just reviewed some of those broader issues which could use a different perspective.

While this may seem far-fetched in our current situation, change does happen and if a generation raised on such ideas as the Big Bang theory were to suddenly find it was just a passing intellectual fad, they might be much more open to re-consideration of other sacred cows. Now you wouldn't think such a thing possible, given how set these particular conversations can be, but that might well be due to many of us being middle aged or older. Who knows what the world will look like in even just another ten years. Certainly the political map looks like it will have significant changes in assumptions and relationships. Not all for the good, but some good will arise from the coming chaos.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Abhas Mitra wrote on Oct. 5, 2014 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Steve,

Boson stars are result of QM rather than any QG, the say way White Dwarfs & Neutron Stars are QM (Degeneracy pressure at T=0) rather than any QG effect. Boson star's stability depends on uncertainty principle instead of degeneracy pressure. Since no appropriate stable Boson of desired property is known, one often invokes imaginary ``scalar fields'' for theoretically constructing them. The upper mass limit of White Dwarf (1.4 solar mass) is obtained by using a Fermion mass ~ 4 GeV (He nuclei). And this is fixed. But if one would imagine Fermions of much lighter mass, the upper mass limit of a Fermi-Dirac star would be higher. Similarly Boson stars are expected to have fixed upper mass limit unless one would conveniently imagine a different Boson mass or a different scalar field. Thus neither FD nor Boson stars can explain BHCs whose MASS RANGE ~ 3 solar mass - billions of solar masses. On the other hand, ECOs have neither any lower nor any upper mass limit. Thus they are indeed appropriate candidates for BHCs. More importantly, their formation is a GENERIC effect, TRAPPING OF RADIATION BY self-gravity.

Abhas

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 15:19 GMT
Thank you again Dr. Mitra,

I would like to further explicate your very important last point. Few would imagine that pure energy in the matter-free regime exhibits self-gravitation; but it is true! However; on the reverse end of the dynamical spectrum, radiation exhibits the universal quality of effusivity, where it resists confinement and pushes against boundaries. When the Eddington limit is reached, the outward pressing force of radiative luminosity exceeds the gravitational attraction. I'll say more on this when there is time, because the detail of what happens is extremely interesting.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 16:09 GMT
To look a bit deeper...

There are conditions for which Relativity breaks down, because its premises are violated. Specifically; one must have a condition where objects with independent centers and discrete surfaces exist, which can move relative to one another, for Relativity to operate. In a Quark Gluon Plasma; this is no longer the case, as individual quarks display asymptotic freedom within a region where sufficient density of energy is maintained. In other words; they are seen to partially or completely overlap their neighbors - a property which in my model is caused by their being topologically incomplete, until a sufficient volume of space allows them to link up.

This becomes greatly important in the inner region of an ECO, but somewhat outside where a horizon would form, and this is the subject of Mitra's 2010 paper with Glendenning.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 16:16 GMT
To be clear...

The violation of the premises of Relativity is evident in the QGP, because the individual quarks do not behave like distinct objects with independent centers. And the 2010 Mitra and Glendenning paper deals with some of the complications arising thereby.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 06:32 GMT
It's probably more accurate to say that event horizons do not exist.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 15:44 GMT
That appears to be what Hawking and others are saying...

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 13:02 GMT
Yes, and if we do find the event horizon a superfluous assumption, like the luminiferous ether or phlogiston of days past, we are a giant step closer to a unitary model free of arbitrary coordinates and other ad hoc propositions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

En Passant replied on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 16:30 GMT
Re: Thomas Howard Ray – Oct. 7, 2014 @ 13:02 GMT

“Yes, and if we do find the event horizon a superfluous assumption, like the luminiferous ether or phlogiston of days past, we are a giant step closer to a unitary model free of arbitrary coordinates and other ad hoc propositions.”

Tom, I am glad you said that. It always seemed to me suspect that there could be a black hole horizon. How could there be a “membrane” (for lack of a better description) at which all objects behave the same? Wouldn’t it depend on the mass and the speed and the trajectory of a given object at which it would (or wouldn’t) be captured by the gravity of the black hole?

That would make the black hole horizon a very bumpy and abstract structure that did not really contribute any information toward the understanding of black holes.

I will again restate my earlier plea that I will not reply to anyone. The reason is that I am not as versed in physics nor mathematics as the rest of you (or most of) are. But if you ask me a “philosophical” question or reply in that “vein,” then I can deal with it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 22:09 GMT
Steve,

This latest finding confirms the quasar luminosity variability issues showing why redshift is the safest distribution function;

"Introduction; Luminosity variability is a common feature of quasars (QSOs), and active galactic nuclei (AGN) in general, throughout the electromagnetic spectrum from X-rays to radio wavelengths and on time-scales from several hours to many years....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 03:09 GMT
Quasar variability does not change whether you plot luminosity on z or time. Naively, one expects quasar variability since the mass accretion that feeds the AGN is likely to be a highly variable process.

You have encouraged me to go deeper into all of this luminosity stuff and you are right. A collapsing universe with increasing c, alpha, and h is strangely symmetric with an expanding universe that assumes these are constants and so observations don't distinguish between them.

I managed to dig up galaxy number densities and luminosity functions and so now can plot them on the same time base. What fun. Once again, there definitely is an evolution of quasars and an evolution of galaxies, but galaxy luminosity is a much reduced function of z and time.

I had no idea that so much useful analysis was out there...why don't you talk about this neat stuff? Of course, the analyses that I have seen support both expanding and collapsing universes, but the plasma aether cloud thingy just does not make any sense.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 09:50 GMT
Steve,

"why don't you talk about this neat stuff?" A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and few really understand it. But even absorbing 20 papers a week for 40 years doesn't penetrate far into astrophysics. Few who espouse on it have even scratched the surface, and that includes many IN the field! As an example you suggest quasar variability doesn't change with time, but the paper I posted identifies that it does appear to! (I'm never convinced of any early report but it's something I'll look into).

The hierarchical model of inertial systems emerged from both logical requirements and an understanding of the (free electron-positron-proton) plasma distribution, concentrated in astrophysical shocks, and high coupling co-efficient. The simplistic Newtonian 'one absolute frame' for speed c fails logically and empirically and always did, that's why SR was born, to try to explain it. But SR just 'moved' the paradoxes.

I didn't invoke 'plasma ether clouds' and what I DO invoke does match the vast data perfectly. If it doesn't make sense to you it's either because you believe something different (bad science!) or that you haven't analysed as much data. How familiar are you with astrophysical shocks for instance? (at ~10^14/ce^-3), the 'Cluster' data, two-fluid plasma's, and fermion 'cancellation' over the Deybe length.

I cited all such work and much more in my paper. Few bother to look as they assume they somehow know already! No wonder the only coherent answer 'looks wrong'.

I have massive libraries of data, papers and links. I'm very happy to post more on any subject you wish, but please do be careful jumping to conclusions on superficial glimpses.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 8, 2014 @ 07:37 GMT
I just have to believe you when you say that you are overwhelmed with all of the data published about astrophysical phenomena. However, the same is true for any discipline in science and it is essential not to be blinded by the entropy of ideas inherent in the cacophony that we call science.

I did not say quasar variability does not change in time. In fact, that statement is oxymoronic. I said that my naïve expectation was that quasars would vary in time by any number of accretion mechanisms.

Everything that I read indicates that the steady-state or recycling universe is just inconsistent with observation. Strangely enough, though, the evidence for an expanding universe is still consistent with a collapsing cosmology. A collapsing cosmology simply means that c, alpha, and h evolve over time and it is c/alpha and mdot that are constant instead.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate